Skip to main content
EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, April 17, 1996

.1536

[Translation]

The Chairman: Let's now go over to the order of the day pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), and to the Order of Reference dated March 7, 1996, Vision and Main Estimates for fiscal year 1996-97.

Our witnesses today are the honourable Sergio Marchi, Minister of Environment, and his Deputy Minister, Mr. Mel Cappe.

[English]

We welcome you to the committee, Mr. Minister and Mr. Deputy Minister. Because there will be a number of questions and we want to devote as much time to that aspect of our gathering following your presentation, Mr. Minister, we will start without delay.

[Translation]

You have the floor.

The honourable Sergio Marchi (Minister of Environment): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It gives me great pleasure to be with you today for the first time as Minister of Environment.

[English]

I'm very much looking forward to working with all of you because I think our working relationship is one that should see tangible benefits for all Canadians in all regions of our country. In fact, to paraphrase the words of the letter from your chairman inviting me to this committee, we have an immense challenge and a daunting responsibility.

In the short months since I've been environment minister I certainly can confirm both that challenge and that responsibility. I've seen the evidence of environmental danger in Canada's Arctic, and at the same time in Vancouver, at the GLOBE '96 conference, I witnessed Canada's environmental industries already changing the world for the better.

I know you'd like to hear my priorities and I'm certainly pleased to share them with you, but first and foremost, both you and I have a duty to listen to Canadians when we speak of the issue of the environment because it is my belief that Canadian expectations are very high in this regard.

They demand federal action on the environment and national standards to protect our ecosystems and the health of our citizens. They do not want an environmental yard sale, and Canadians most certainly do not want nature used as a bargaining chip among various levels of government.

After all, Canada's environment has been a source of national pride and national unity. In short, our environment is central to the core of who we are and what we are, so we ignore Canadians' wishes on the environment at our mutual peril.

[Translation]

I was pleased that, in the last throne speech, environment security was identified as a priority for the government. I'm not afraid of such a challenge. It was a liberal government in the early 80's which laid the solid foundation for dealing with the menace of acid rain.

.1540

Together with your current Chairman, I was part of that challenge and I want to work with you now, so we can control the air and water pollution that Canadians face today.

[English]

Above all, we must also never forget that a majority of Canadians worry that their health has been affected by a deteriorating environment. And they are right to be worried. I think we should remember that whatever our priorities are, one of the ribbons, one of the bows, that ties all of these priorities together must indeed be the health theme. Health really underlines the environment and vice versa. The two certainly are the opposite sides of the same coin. Our health and the well-being of generations yet to come is at risk because of the assault by pollutants and toxins.

In our Arctic, which I referred to moments ago, I learned of mothers whose breast milk was contaminated by wind-driven poisons from Asia, Europe and the Americas. Ozone depletion brings dangers to children who play outside on a summer day on any street in Canada. Smog alerts in urban centres bring risks to kids and adults with asthma. All of us are concerned as well about the recent contentions by author Theo Colburn.

I raise this not to evoke despair or to be dramatic, but to say as well that Environment Canada's science has already supplied much evidence in the same vein, so we must take concrete steps to protect Canadians from these and other environmental threats.

It is clear, Mr. Chairman, that we are reaching the limits of nature. When restaurants advertise their use of bottled and filtered water, when an oxygen bar in Toronto opens, I think it is time we re-examine our priorities. That's why I am firm in my commitment that a strong federal presence is necessary to ensure that Canadians, wherever they live, have access to fresh water they can drink and clean air they can breathe.

As this is my first visit to this parliamentary committee, let me quickly and generally sketch out for you six target themes for the months ahead that I wish to pursue.

One is on the theme of building public support. I intend to continue building and enhancing that public support for our environment. The concerns and actions of everyday Canadians are often far ahead of their politicians and their governments.

Ekos Research, for instance, did a very illuminating research study. They drafted two lists and identified 22 issues on those two lists that they thought were important. One of the lists, which was a list of elites - politicians, bureaucrats, company executives, senior media - ranked the environment 10th out of 22. They asked the list of average Canadians to rank the 22 issues in priority and, lo and behold, they ranked the environment number 2.

That is a powerful message. Sometimes that's why people think their governments are dysfunctional, because sometimes government priorities are not the priorities of the people across the country.

When we read research studies, it is also fascinating that when you ask Canadians who they think the first line of defence on the environment is they don't automatically say a certain level of government. They see themselves as the first line of defence, because it is their attitudes, their actions and their practices that they think in the end determines the fate of the environment.

That's why we need to recognize good environmental citizenship, that's why education is important, and that's why Environment Canada utilizes communications tools such as the Internet to reach more of our citizens, not fewer. That's also why programs like Action 21 are important, because they bring the environmental action right down to the neighbourhood level. If it doesn't happen locally, it isn't going to happen nationally or internationally.

.1545

The second thing is environmental protection. We must rid water and air of toxics. It really is about getting back to basics, and that's the message Canadians are giving us. As the custodians of 20% of the world's total fresh water supply, Canada has an essential global responsibility to manage its water wisely for the benefit of current and future generations. Clean and adequate supplies of water are vital to human health as well as wildlife. Our economic well-being also depends on this resource, whether it be agriculture, industry or transportation.

Through collective efforts all Canadians and governments can point to water conservation successes. There has been a 70% to 90% reduction in pollutants from sectors such as pulp, mining and ore refineries. So there are gains and success stories and we need to recognize them.

But we also have to do more for our water. We are still among the most wasteful users of water. We also must remember that some 360 chemical pollutants have been identified in the Great Lakes. That's one of the reasons we have made it a commitment of our government to re-engineer the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, as mentioned recently in the throne speech. It will be a key to any success we can hope to achieve on this front.

It is time to stress pollution prevention, as your committee reminded government. It is much better to stop toxics before they leave the pipe or the smokestack than slap on fines after the damage is done.

Prevention should also be our watchword when we're dealing with auto and truck emissions. We have about 14 million cars in Canada and each one of them dumps about 4 tonnes of pollutants into our atmosphere. We should all be preoccupied by the very high smog concentrations in certain parts of Canada. Let us not forget the health component. Let us not forget that smog can kill. This is the stuff that sends our kids to hospitals.

The nature of our air quality problems across Canada also varies, whether it's by population, geography, source or climate. A good example of those differences would be to compare British Columbia and southwestern Ontario. In B.C. the region's unique geography of mountains and ocean traps and concentrates pollutants. The primary culprit in B.C. is car emissions, while in Ontario the problem is more complex, involving a higher proportion of pollutants that flow from the United States.

We can quickly see that controlling car emissions in terms of air quality is only part of the solution. That's why we have to be able to stress the use of public transit, to look at our tax system and wonder if we can be creative in aiding the use of public transit and rewarding those who have good environmental citizenship values at heart. That's why we must look at car pools and engage industry and governments throughout the northeastern United States.

As this government defends national environmental standards, strengthens them and adds to them, we should be aware that Canadians agree with all three. An analysis of any public survey will show that an overwhelming number of Canadians anywhere in Canada want national environmental standards. For instance, the response from Canadians to a revitalized CEPA has been very clear and very strong. It has moved well beyond environmental organizations and includes many caregivers and others in the health world who have taken the time to write or call about their concerns. While the response is supportive of what we will be attempting to achieve, it also comes with a warning for you and me, for we had better deliver.

.1550

The third area is environmental conservation. Canadians also insist that we make a priority of saving nature, and nothing seems to provoke people as much as when they hear that wildlife is threatened or wildlife habitat is being destroyed. In fact, I was surprised that of all the issues the public contacts our ministry on across the country, the number one issue that elicits the most response is on the question of species being endangered. So it is natural that Canada needs federal endangered species legislation that can protect all species, all across the country.

To achieve this goal, I am committed to working with all of our partners, and I intend to bring legislation forward this fall that, at a minimum, will protect all species on federal lands and establish a national framework for protecting all species in Canada.

You should also know that we need to ensure that Canadians are not party to any exploitation of endangered species through illegal trading practices. That's why we will implement regulations under the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act within the next two months.

[Translation]

Fourth, we have to build partnerships. When I listed my priorities, I've tried to make a strong case for a federal presence in environment. That is a core belief that I hold. I am convinced that we need to build partnerships. It is a priority to stop environmental deterioration.

[English]

Among other partnerships that we must seek additional to the number one priority that I elicited from the public is that we have to build these partnerships in and among governments. There is no room and there is very little time for bickering and squabbles between government departments or various levels of government. The public wants green grass, not a turf war. One reason for public concern is the increasing political encroachment on environmental protection.

The still-to-be-defined politics of the far right has already made a target out of the environment. Environmental protection, for example, stands to become a major issue in the United States presidential campaign. Here at home, several provincial governments have already made deep cuts into their environmental budgets. This government, indeed our department, has also made cuts. But, Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully suggest that there is a big difference between cutting expense and in cutting responsibility, and if we do the latter there are going to be very serious environmental consequences facing all of our citizens.

Fifth is international commitments. The world tends to often see Canada and Canadians through an environmental lens, whether it's postcards of pristine lakes and mountains or memories of unspoiled wilderness. It is clear that the world expects Canadian environmental leadership, but because you and I know that pollution ignores borders, boundaries, checkpoints and datelines, it is absolutely important that we all put a top priority on international work and commitments, as well as following up on that work and that commitment.

The importance of our international initiatives are underlined when you realize that some 71% of the pollutants on the Great Lakes basin come from outside of Canada; that the Canadian Arctic receives six tonnes of PCBs from outside Canada every year; that 50% of the acid rain in Canada originates from the United States and that Asia is the principal source for PCBs and pesticides found in trout from the Rocky Mountain lakes. Our red book commitment was that under a Liberal government environmental security through sustainable development would be a cornerstone of Canadian foreign policy. That is exactly why we must strive to assume that leadership position in the various chambers of the international community.

.1555

We should also recognize that the international priority is also linked to the priority at home. That is to say, you can't speak with a strong voice abroad if you can't speak with a strong voice at home. Therefore, the two are not mutually exclusive; in fact, they are mutually dependent.

Finally, number six is jobs and growth. Quite simply, sustainable development leads to jobs for Canadians. These are good jobs, quality jobs, new economy jobs, especially for our young Canadians, who all want bright futures for themselves.

When we talk about a clean environment and jobs, it is not an either/or proposition. That's the old school of thought. There is a new school - a right school - of thought that says we can, we should and we will have both.

Canadian environmental industries are a growing contributor to the economy, not a weight on the economy. With 4,500 small and medium-sized firms, employing 150,000 Canadians and generating revenues of $11 billion, this is one of the quickest-growing sectors of the Canadian economy. Take the world market, which GLOBE '96 showcased. The global world market for these products is currently at $450 billion, which will climb to $600 billion by the turn of the next century.

That kind of incredible market, given the link that the environment has to the international community, is another invaluable reason why national leadership by the federal government is important - whether it's in facilitating trade missions to open these doors for our environmental companies, the Team Canada missions led by the Prime Minister, or indeed, the technology partners program we just recently announced, which will help finance and launch these new and very powerful environmental technologies.

It is important for us to help industry get ready for that new economy because industrial products that hurt the economy won't be welcome in the next millennium either by governments or by the people who buy those goods, services and products.

Those are my six areas of priority that I will certainly be engaged in. I look forward to hearing what your priorities and views might be in terms of the next 6, 12 or 18 months. As well, I entertain any possible questions that will be coming forward from members around this table. Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Marchi, for giving us your priorities in such a forceful and succinct manner. We certainly welcome them, and we also welcome the way in which you have linked the economy to the environment, which is a conceptual process that's always extremely difficult to follow.

We have already a list of speakers. First on the list is Madame Guay.

[Translation]

Mrs. Guay (Laurentides): I am very pleased to be back on this committee.

Mr. Minister, I very much appreciate your comments and your action plans for the year to come. However, I think that the reality is very different. If we take into account the cuts the department of the Environment is subjected to this year and will be subjected to in the years to come, I don't think it will be really able to perform as well as you might want it to.

You stated that you want to protect the environment. We are more and more turning towards measures based upon the good will of people. It is happening in the United States and in some provinces.

.1600

We are pushing for voluntary compliance although we are very well aware of the fact that it creates a huge risk for the environment. Mr. Minister, how do you intend to protect the environment under such circumstances?

[English]

Mr. Marchi: First, it's nice to have you back around this table. We are all the better for it.

Yes, I mentioned in my opening address that certainly I'm not going to throw the first stone, because under program review one and two, all federal departments were subjected and certainly none were exempted, not the least of which was our Department of the Environment.

So there have been reductions in all of our departments, as well as Environment. But I think it's also interesting to note that there has been a program review. That is to say, the program review reductions were conducted along priority lines. It wasn't a situation where the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance mandated all the departments to put all their programs into a vice and squeeze. We've tried that. In fact, during the 10 years of my opposition, I think there were a total of 13 or 14 across-the-board cuts, which is not the way to go, because it means you take a good program, put it in a vice, squeeze it and make it mediocre.

Instead, I think we were able to do it with at least a sensitivity to priorities. What are the product lines in each of the departments that should be kept or augmented, or modified, or indeed dropped in terms of usefulness or public concern or demand? So I think that made a difference. In terms of some of the other provincial cutbacks, I'm not sure there has been such a priorization of those reductions. I see more of the operation of a vice.

Second, if you look at those priorities, we've increased the savings in terms of the automation of our weather. Obviously, we've looked at reductions in grants and contributions across the board. But we also made a point, for instance, of protecting enforcement. There was no reduction on the enforcement side because we believe the environment needs enforcement. We believe Canadians want viable enforcement. We believe it's not only good enough to talk the talk; you have to walk it. There was very good reason, therefore, that enforcement was protected in Environment Canada.

We also protected the regions. The regional offices had less cutbacks and reductions than the head office. That's because things also happen in the regions. That's where they are close to what is happening in the environment as well.

We also protected the contribution, for instance, to the Canadian Environmental Network. Why is that? Because we wanted to give a signal that we very much value the public's eye. A few people in this country think just because the profile of the environment is low, the importance is low too. That's not the case. The profile may be low for a number of reasons, but the importance is very high. So the Canadian Environmental Network is key in terms of mobilizing that public opinion and public interest. So a number of priorities complemented the reductions our department also had to undergo.

In terms of voluntary compliance, I mentioned that we certainly exempted enforcement. But voluntary compliance should only be one tool in the armament. I'm not an ideologue. I'm not going to say you have either all regulations or no regulations. I believe there are areas in which regulations are the order of the day. You can jump up and down as much as you want, but that's a fact. Look at pulp and paper. If it weren't for regulations, we wouldn't be able to say they are now making good progress. So there is room for regulation.

I think there's also room for ``voluntary'' in a number of sectors. I've also articulated the whole concept of a covenant. Why? Because in regulations, you leave a community out. A regulation is between a government and a company. With respect to voluntary, you also leave out a community, because it's between the industry and the government.

A covenant can fit into the middle of that spectrum, where you involve and educate a community, and you bring it in. You bring an industry and you say, ``You make an agreement with that community''. Then you have a government that is the accountability enforcer, if you will. In that triangle I think we can advance, in a number of examples, better returns for our environment than in sectors that are already supposed to have regulations and don't get covered.

.1605

So I believe that the reductions we made certainly had a priority and were reflected in the budgets we tabled before the House of Commons.

[Translation]

Mrs. Guay: I would like to take advantage of the Minister being here to ask the following question.

We have been following very closely the case of the Irving Whale and we are well aware that, to date, the cost of lifting this barge has reached $18 million and that it will further increase this year by $10 or $11 million or even possibly $15 million.

My question is in two parts. Have you set a cap for these costs or, if not, are you simply going to decide to pay whatever the cost may be?

I would like to know out of what budgetary enveloppe of the Department of the Environment or the Coast Guard you will take the funds that will be allocated to the lifting operation and all the studies that have been requested this year.

[English]

Mr. Marchi: I'll certainly ask my deputy, who I didn't introduce. He's probably better known to you than I. Mel Cappe will be responding to the specific question of the studies.

In terms of a cap, that's a difficult question; there's not an easy answer to that. This project is very technical. I don't think we should be political about the situation at all, and I'm glad that my friend from the Reform Party who wrote me on this issue underscored that issue. The question of technical competence and requirements should dictate what we do and how much it costs.

The whole question of capping could also be very difficult because you need to do the right thing. There is no risk-free solution. We just went through the fourth assessment. We just completed a 30-day public consultation. Overwhelmingly the people most affected...in fact, the closer you got to the barge, the more intense and favourable was the opinion in terms of the option of lifting it. That was overwhelmingly what people said. They said get it up and get it out, obviously with safety.

Can anyone guarantee? I'm not sure. Can anybody guarantee anything in life and the twists, fates and turns that life gives us? Not at all. But it is the most risk-free solution that technically was concluded and that publicly was agreed to.

It is also a joint operation between us at Environment along with Fisheries and Oceans. That's why Fisheries and Oceans, vis-à-vis the coast guard, has the final say on the technical decisions as well as what we need in costs and expenditures on equipment. When you're dealing with the health of the sea and the resources and Canadians, I think you put that first, beyond the dollars and cents.

You asked how we're going to fund that. There's the ship source pollution fund, which we will obviously access in terms of the cost of the project as well. The Irving company is responsible for the hauling, transportation and treatment of the cargo on board, so there obviously is the principle of ``polluter pay'' as well. Those are the two sources for how the funding will take shape.

The Chairman: Mr. Deputy, could you reply on the technical side, keeping in mind that we are running out of time?

[Translation]

Mr. Mel Cappe (Deputy Minister, Department of the Environment of Canada): We believe that all necessary studies have been done and our assessment of the lifting operation confirmed that the best option available to us was to salvage the barge in accordance with the principles established by the minister, namely the health and security of the people concerned and the whole issue of fishing in the Gulf.

.1610

Mrs. Guay: You stated earlier that the Irving company had made representations. Do you intend to have Irving pay for the salvage of the Irving Whale since we know that the company was compensated by its insurer when the ship capsized? Will you take a firm stand and will you live up to the principle of ``polluter pay'' by requesting that Irving pay for this operation?

[English]

Mr. Marchi: Obviously, as I mentioned, in terms of lifting, we're looking to the Ship Source Oil Pollution Fund, which is obviously made of contributions from many a company. Secondly, we have had ongoing and very serious discussions with the Irving company. The company certainly has made written representations to our department. We have made our intentions very clear. That was an issue during the public process phase, where certainly Canadians spoke quite forcefully and eloquently. I have every belief that the Irving company, at the end of the day, will do the right thing.

The Chairman: Thank you. Merci, Madame Guay.

Mr. Forseth, the floor is yours.

Mr. Forseth (New Westminster - Burnaby): Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Minister, for coming to us.

On page 5 of your notes that you provided to us under the title of ``Building Partnerships'', in part you say here that:

On April 25th, your colleague, the Minister of Industry, stated that:

Now, we know that you, the minister, have the former Bill C-94 on your desk, and you have until this Monday to decide whether or not you'll reintroduce it. I have a three-part question.

First, do you believe in uniformity of standards of gasoline? Two, in promising a reduction in greenhouse gases, will you, the minister, explain to me how that fits in with the removal of MMT from Canadian gasoline, and how that will be able to reduce NO2 emissions, which come from cars. The third part: in the United States the Environmental Protection Agency is currently conducting a series of tests to determine whether or not MMT is harmful to an automobile's onboard diagnostic system. Does Environment Canada plan to do similar tests, or is it going to continue to rely solely on the biased tests of the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Association?

I'm suggesting that the minister do the right thing and leave Bill C-94 currently in its resting place and do what's being done in the United States - in other words, some more testing, other than tests by interested parties like Ethyl or the big three automobile manufacturers.

So my question was in three parts. I talked about standards, I talked about MMT and the goals of how it could result in cleaner air, and then the issue of independent testing and science over political lobby groups. Where are we going, Mr. Minister, with that bill?

Mr. Marchi: Thank you very much for your three-part question. Because of the process of decisions, it's difficult to get into the specifics before the government has announced, according to that due process, its decision, which will be coming very soon. But let me try, within that context, as best as possible, to be fair and up front with your questions.

In the first one, you suggest uniformity, as if to assume or take for granted that because there was a court decision on one aspect of EPA's decision, somehow the whole question of harmonization is guaranteed, when in fact that is not the case. If you look at the United States situation, it is very unclear even after that court ruling, because one-third of the states will be on reformulated gas and reformulated gas doesn't allow MMT. So there isn't any uniformity in the United States to be uniform with or to harmonize with. That's why I'm in full accord with uniformity, at least starting at home. When you look at the States there is no uniformity.

.1615

Second, in the States 15 major petroleum refineries have already decided they won't allow MMT or be involved with MMT. So there's also no uniformity from them in the United States. While the EPA has not appealed the decision, it nonetheless remains very concerned. Ethyl still has to do health reviews.

You mentioned the whole question of the auto study, which brings me to your second question, when you asked if you were to eliminate MMT, how it would help in terms of greenhouse gases. You mentioned the auto industry's biased studies. There are a number of their studies that they believe are conclusive in demonstrating that MMT gums up their diagnostics. In fact, according to Ethyl's own study, 80% of the MMT in the gas stays in the car. So where does it go? Into the trunk? It has to go somewhere.

So if it gums up the machinery, the devices that indicate if your control mechanisms are operating, and the driver keeps spewing this, is that going to help smog or hurt smog? Is it going to help health or hurt health? I think the answer is quite obvious.

If it does in fact gum up the auto controls, what about consumers? Will warranties be respected by manufacturers? If so, will the cost be sent back to the consumers? Probably.

So who pays then? Is it the petroleum industry? Is it the car community? Or is it the average consumer who pays? We talked about how one of the main culprits for smog in urban centres, in Vancouver and in my city of Toronto, is auto emissions.

It costs us, according to the provincial ministers - not according to me, don't take it from me - at least $1 billion a year for respiratory health problems related to car emissions. It's not a minor issue.

The third is the independence of tests. It's not an easy situation. I would have preferred it if these two giants had worked together. Often they are the first to say to governments, ``Get out of our hair. Leave us alone. Get off our turf.'' Here you have two significant industries, one that creates the cars and one that creates the juice that goes into the car. One would have hoped that the two of them could have come together and had an independent test. For a lot of reasons that predated my arrival, that hasn't happened.

So the ultimate role of governments exercising judgments on behalf of the country and citizens is to be the arbitrator in that situation, to decide, to lead and to take a stand. Whether you take your knocks or not, take a stand. Ultimately we will. It's not easy. It's a complex situation. I look forward to making that announcement on behalf of the government and to giving the best reasons we can advance and marshall.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Marchi.

Mr. Forseth, you have a one-part question.

Mr. Forseth: Yes, I have a one-part question.

I want to ask you about the Sydney tar ponds clean-up. Many administrations of many governments have come and gone and the tar ponds issue is still sitting there. It might be Canada's equivalent of the Love Canal. Where are we going with that? Is there a role for the federal government? Is there a role for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act before we go any further? Do you have any plans to push this issue along so that we can finally get the Sydney tar ponds cleaned up?

.1620

Mr. Marchi: I think you're right that this is a serious situation. You've written to me and I appreciate your advice. Is there a role for the federal government? Absolutely. Is there a role eventually for some kind of assessment? Absolutely.

I think this is a bit of a prototype. If we mean business on health and environment, what do governments do about the Sydney tar ponds? It's not a question of going back to the bickering. We can argue whether it's the provincial government's fault or the feds', whether it's the people who wanted the jobs... Look, that's water under the bridge and I'm not interested in that. There's a health prerequisite here.

We have been in touch with the provincial government. We have signalled our interest in addressing this matter. I've had discussions with my colleague, the Minister of Health, who in addition to his departmental responsibility comes from Nova Scotia and is in fact politically responsible for the province of Nova Scotia. He is concerned. There is a proposal being advocated by the provincial government that hasn't been registered, which means it hasn't triggered the assessment process yet. I believe if one is to be fair about public opinion, the public feels that this solution is wanting. I feel that those signals have gone to the provincial government.

It would be my hope that at some point there would be a joint assessment, both federal and provincial, to come up with the right solution. A number of people have advocated that it's a costly solution, whatever that option is. That may in fact be true, but again, the whole question is cost versus value of one's health.

Secondly, it can demonstrate why we need to do assessment properly in the first place. Do we want more Sydney tar ponds or do we want fewer? If we want fewer, we have to do the right thing at the front end rather than concerning ourselves with a solution at the back end.

Thirdly, whatever the solution is, the silver lining is that we finally, hopefully, will be doing the right thing, and creating jobs in the process because of the environmental technology required to pursue that option.

So yes, it definitely is on my Richter scale. I'm very interested in this and I hope both governments can soon come together and do the appropriate thing.

Mr. Forseth: Do you think it will be done during your tenure in office?

Mr. Marchi: Yes.

The Chairman: Mr. Steckle.

Mr. Steckle (Huron - Bruce): Mr. Minister, thank you for appearing today.

Many of us have varied interests in environmental issues, some in the environment in different ways. For myself, I share the interest in an environment where basically the species that we believe are endangered should be protected. I'm pleased to see that your ministry is taking initiative to bring about legislation that would see some security or protection for some of those species.

I'm just wondering how restrictive that legislation might become in terms of inhibiting private individuals. You talked about federal lands in the statement you made moments ago, about protecting the species that happen to be found on federal lands. Are you encroaching onto provincial lands, private lands? I trust that not all the species needing protection will necessarily find themselves on federal lands.

I'm also wondering whether there might be provision given for those... We know that we're talking about trading in animal parts. This has become almost an underground economy in itself. We don't want to see that happening, but we do have legal licensing of people in this country to take certain species of animals that are not yet endangered, yet we have prohibited the selling of those parts. Has consideration been given to allowing for a legal sale of parts of those animals taken legally under licence, whether that might be a consideration? We're talking about value-added. Or do we just dispose of those things because they happen to be of a species that wouldn't allow us to sell those particular parts?

Mr. Marchi: Taking your second question first, currently it is illegal. No, I haven't had the time to place any consideration on the option you have suggested. As I mentioned in my remarks, we hope to have WAPPRIITA brought into force within the next two months.

.1625

In terms of your first question on the whole question of encroaching provincial or private lands, that's an example where the challenge is really on the federal and provincial governments. There has been some degree of frustration with the government's response in terms of the endangered species proposed legislation, because people have called it a 4% solution - 4% referring to just federal lands - that hasn't been strong enough on habitat protection. The argument is that birds don't know a border, so if you have a 4% solution, what about the other 96%? If you don't have some sensitivity to habitat being protected, obviously species will continue to be endangered, so you have to go beyond. If we pay attention to the fact that Canadians are very concerned about this file, we need to go beyond those markers.

As soon as you go beyond those markers, you might have a provincial government say: stop - now you are entering our turf, so back off. I'm saying that I want to get a federal piece of legislation on endangered species on the book, but I also want to encourage a framework with our provincial governments to get to that 100% solution. As I mentioned to one minister who asked what would happen if a bird that is federal lands on a rock that is provincial, I said that Canadians don't give a darn about whose rock it is. Canadians want the bird to fly. If we're so concerned with the rock, the bird ain't going to fly. If the bird ain't going to fly, we're not going to protect species. If we don't protect species, we're not doing what Canadians want us to do.

The challenge, therefore, is whether provincial and federal governments can get together to talk about the bird rather than the rock. I think we can and I hope we can, and I'm certainly going to press this as much as I possibly can.

Mr. Steckle: Another issue that has troubled me for some time is the scenario surrounding the way we treat our ecosystem, in particular our oceans and our international waters. In the past we have used international waters as dumping grounds for certain effluents and wastes we felt could be disposed of. What are we doing currently to ensure that we don't further pollute?

We had some responses to the committee's CEPA report back in 1995, and there were some recommendations on lists of waste materials that were acceptable for disposal and others that may not be acceptable. I'm just wondering where we are on that issue. Are we being very stringent on it in terms of the kinds of products we do not want seen disposed in our oceans, or are we relaxing? There is some thought that our American counterparts may not be as eager to pursue further restrictions on that as we may be. Where do we stand in our relationship with the Americans on that issue?

Mr. Marchi: Perhaps I'll ask Mel to answer the question more specifically, but in general the government hasn't made a decision to revive existing regulations or policies that would allow the disposal of mine waste at sea. I think the very essence of CEPA comes from your committee when you say that prevention should be the name of the game as opposed to after the fact. In fairness, my deputy may be a bit more specific on the issue than I would.

Mr. Cappe: Mr. Chair, in the government response to the committee's report on CEPA, on page 61 of the English version, there's an extensive section on CEPA and Canada's oceans. As the committee found, it's a very important issue. Certainly for Canada, with three oceans, it's of some significance.

.1630

In that section in chapter 8 there are a number of statements of government policy in terms of the creation of environmental objectives and codes of practice, including disposal from wharves and intertidal zones, as well as indicating that the list of authorized wastes would be limited to non-hazardous wastes. So there's an attempt in the government response to really tighten up ocean dumping as it applies to waste going into the oceans.

This is consistent with the government's initiative on the Oceans Act as well, which is attempting to take a more serious and coherent approach. There are actually 15 departments that deal with oceans in one way or another, and this is an attempt to have a coherent approach to protecting the ocean environment.

The Chairman: Mr. Finlay.

Mr. Finlay (Oxford): Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to be a part of this as an alternate member of the environment committee, which I spent so many happy and arduous hours on over the last two and a half years.

Mr. Marchi: Is that an inside joke?

Mr. Finlay: Mr. Minister, it's good to have you here and it's good to hear you say some of the things that many of us on this committee have been saying for the last two and a half years. We know that the environment is a large issue in the minds of most Canadians. Our problem sometimes is that we're not sure whether your department or the government or the cabinet are quite as aware of that as some of us. You say that they see themselves as the first line of defence, which is quite true. But we still have to think globally, as you've eloquently pointed out, because pollution knows no boundaries - no more than the stormy petrel or the Canada goose. We have to act locally.

I am concerned, and I'm glad that my colleague Mr. Forseth asked about MMT. We wrestled with that problem. We listened to the witnesses. We came to a meeting of the minds, we thought, and then when we came back we discovered that perhaps it wasn't going to be promulgated.

For the Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, which was mentioned earlier today, funding has been reduced. It is a world-class institute and it must remain that way. On the lamprey eel problem in the Great Lakes... You said that we own about a quarter or a fifth of the world's fresh water - we do. In my view in the next 50 years it will become the most important resource in the world.

I hope, Mr. Minister, that we can get some of this awareness, through you and your department, into the cabinet and into the government, because I don't see it yet. I'll give you an example.

As you may be aware, I got an intervenor funding act through Parliament as a private member's bill. It's going to go before the natural resources committee and I'm looking forward to that. However, there's a National Energy Board hearing right now in Calgary. Because of representations by citizens in Ontario, the Ontario Pipeline Landowners Association and me and one or two other members, we asked for intervenor funding for somebody representing that group to go. The National Energy Board has been listening and has made some nice changes. They've said yes, you can send in your arguments; we've arranged for a daily transcript to be available and you can have a week to think about it and all the intervenors can write back. What's missing is the oral presentation, rebuttal, question and answer. Therefore some key things will not be discussed unless somebody picks them out of transcripts and writes about them.

I want to ask a question regarding voluntary pollution prevention agreements that were mentioned. As I understand it, they are generally formalized as a memorandum of understanding between government and industry. One of the main criticisms of MOUs is that they are negotiated behind closed doors without public discussion. I'd like to ask how many MOUs Environment Canada has negotiated with industry and how many are pending or being contemplated, and what these memos of understanding provide. If they're aimed at reducing or preventing pollution, which is a good aim, why are they negotiated behind closed doors? Why is the public not involved in the process from the beginning? As you said, Mr. Minister, there's one taxpayer and the public ends up paying.

.1635

Mr. Marchi: Thank you very much, John. Before your question, you mentioned departmental awareness, in terms of government awareness. Let me assure you that our department is not only aware but very passionate. I'm very proud - and I don't say this to be hokey-pokey - to be working with a number of people in our department who are quite passionate about the environment. It really is a cause.

I love going to war when I have people behind me who are on a mission and have a cause. So I don't question at all the serious approach our department and our people within it take.

Sometimes governments and media look at an issue in terms of profile in the very immediate world. We are committed to a lot of our red book commitments, and we still have a way to go on a number of them in terms of the environmental chapter. But sometimes the political world deals in such immediate things that it stops and doesn't remember that just because an issue may not be as immediate doesn't mean it's not of concern.

You and I sometimes deal in the world of ``what have you done for me lately?'' as opposed to asking ``what are you really concerned about?'' That's why there's a dichotomy. When you ask Canadians what the number one issue is, they will tell you it's jobs and the economy. When you ask them what the number one issue is locally, quite often they'll say it's the whole question of justice, criminality, peace and order.

The environment may not be at the top of our minds, but it's hard rock, bedrock gut, and if we touch it the wrong way we're going to get a snap back. That's what the Ekos Research poll demonstrated in a very brilliant way. I think governments need to recognize that. I think the media needs to recognize that, because the public has.

A decision will be coming down soon on MMT that will grapple with the complexities. On the fresh water institutes, I think you're right on in terms of water.

When you ask people what they're most concerned about with regard to the environment, very often they'll say water because they know we have a lot of it, and they have an uncanny sense - God forbid - that in the next years there will be wars fought over water, if they haven't already been fought over water resources. They know a good thing when they see it and they want our governments on the vanguard.

On the institute, I think there's a challenge for the Department of Fisheries, my department and the Government of Canada to see what we can do to maintain that leadership. I know that some of the scientists who have left...have been assumed by our department because we do give a darn about the individuals. We want to maintain that critical mass.

That's why at the GLOBE conference I met with a number of foreign delegations who are looking for research on water. We should be exporting the research, the know-how, in order to keep that critical mass.

I believe some seven voluntary agreements have been negotiated with the motor vehicle, automotive parts, metal finishers, dry-cleaners, paint and coatings, printing and graphics and chemical producers. I think your question is apropos because if the public views the environment as important, and if the environment is about health, then the public has the right to know.

That's why, in part, I have introduced the whole concept of covenant. In an MOU, or a regulation, the community is on the outside looking in. I think we should bring them into the tent because sometimes they care more about the environment than their governments or industry do, but also because they have to know.

I'll give you an example. In my own riding there's Emery Creek. It is the most polluted tributary in Metropolitan Toronto. It flows into the Humber, which then flows into Lake Ontario. Why is it the most polluted creek? Maybe it's because the community has no idea.

I was ratepayer president a number of times for a number of different groups, and it was never on our Richter scale.

.1640

Not once, in all my time here since 1984, has someone written to me about the pollution in that creek, and yet 2,500 firms have dumped into Emery Creek. Why hasn't a federal or provincial inspector gone to Emery Creek to enforce the regulations? Probably because they have had bigger fish to fry, such as the Great Lakes and acid rain. So Emery Creek continues to flow and pollute. There's a classic example where a covenant may work better than a regulation that is not enforced.

So you bring in a community and you say, start paying attention to the backwater of the Emery Creek because your kids are going to be affected. Industry...stop it because a community is looking at you and you're right in our backyard. They are 100 yards from each other. That's what we do sometimes in the west end; we put industry right next to residential communities. They're watching. They know. Stop it.

Then you have government. Is it provincial or federal? As long as we have a standard and we subscribe to the highest standard, I'll be happy. Then we sign a covenant and industry has to account to both the community and the government. Don't expect a government to defend an industry. Don't expect the community to support your products, because you're finished.

What is happening now? We just gave an Action 21 contribution and industry is a participant. The community is now a participant and the first working group was held in the factory, which is part of the pollution problem in the first place. It actually has a room that the owner has designated. That will move the yardsticks further than regulations that haven't worked.

Can that be applied across the board? Absolutely not. But I believe in the principle that the public has the right to know, and the more it knows, the more this committee is going to be important. The more it knows, the more the public profile will go up and then we'll get action. So the public's right to know is absolutely key.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Finlay.

Mr. Taylor, please.

Mr. Taylor (The Battlefords - Meadow Lake): Thank you very much. I would first like to welcome the minister to the committee and I welcome him to his position. I believe his task within cabinet is the most critical of all of his colleagues, and I certainly wish him well, because with his success comes the success of the planet.

I was intrigued and pleased with his remarks today about the need for a federal presence and the strong federal standards applied across the board. I was also interested in his comments about cuts that have occurred at the federal and provincial levels. There's a big difference between cutting expenses and cutting responsibilities, particularly when taken with your statement. I think it is critical that we maintain our responsibilities where necessary.

In that regard, I understand that the federal government is proposing to devolve to the provinces the federal government's environmental assessment role under subsection 35(2) of the Fisheries Act. Subsection 35(2) of the Fisheries Act is a trigger for environmental assessment, and it's one of the most important environmental assessment features in this country. Certainly we know that from the Oldman Dam assessment that was done in the province of Alberta.

Can you tell me, given that some of the provinces in their cuts in both expenses and responsibilities are affecting environmental protection and assessment activity, whether it is true that the federal government is proposing to devolve subsection 35(2) of the Fisheries Act, or can we be assured that the federal presence will be maintained and protected?

Mr. Marchi: Thank you, and thank you for your words of welcome.

Because we live in an age when taxpayers impress upon their various governments accountability on the financial purse, we have to be concerned that the environment doesn't fall between the federal-provincial cracks. That's why sometimes there is the concern that while there have been significant cuts in the number of provincial domains, at the same time there have been requests by those provincial governments to assume more responsibility.

.1645

I mentioned national standards. I think people have a sense that they want national standards, with management of those standards shared between governments and led by certain governments as long as they subscribe to a high standard. They also want accountability.

I think people are wise to move in that direction, but if it means assuming greater provincial authority or power to do things, and if it's simply delegated and the provincial governments then cut back tremendously in those areas, which means that gets transposed to a voluntary regime, I think the environment loses. That's where the challenge of federal-provincial cooperation must be principled. It must not be seen as a naked power grab for the sake of power. It must be a good arrangement in the best interests of the environment and the various interests within the environment.

On your question about subsection 35(2) of the Fisheries Act, I certainly haven't seen anything on paper that says this is what's going to happen at a table of federal-provincial ministers.

As you know, that's obviously led by the Prime Minister, and I certainly have no knowledge at this time that it in fact will or will not be the case.

I can tell you that I have met many groups in the first months of my tenure across the country and I have been impressed by the concern that has been demonstrated on subsection 35(2) as a trigger for environmental assessment and how importantly that section plays.

I think our chairman asked a question in this very similar vein to the Minister of Fisheries this week. On the one hand the minister agreed with the importance and on the other hand he signalled that there may be changes.

I have communicated with the Minister of Fisheries from my vantage point and have let him know about the kinds of findings that were given to me and the kinds of representations that were made to me from groups across the country, particularly, I might add, in the province of British Columbia. While I was there at the GLOBE conference I had a round table. There were a number of angles and that was the number one issue. Accordingly I have certainly made my views known to the Minister of Fisheries.

I have also asked that before any decision is contemplated on the whole question of that act we ensure that the voices of concerned individuals and groups be heard, not only by the Minister of the Environment but by the Minister of Fisheries as well.

Mr. Taylor: I certainly urge you to provide as much support as you can. I think you are aware that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act was not easily drafted and not easily implemented, but it is a star in Canada's environmental legislation and we have to do all we can to protect what exists.

Do I have time for one small question?

The Chairman: Yes, for a very small one.

Mr. Taylor: It's related to harmonization discussions between the provinces and the federal government. Discussions have occurred in the past. In a question about endangered species you indicated greater discussion and greater involvement with the provinces. I certainly understand that in terms of jurisdiction.

It's my understanding that the basic discussions about harmonization have stopped at the political level but continue at the official level. What is your feeling about the harmonization debate? What do you think is happening? What would you like to happen?

Mr. Marchi: I think it's an important debate to have. It's important to discuss it and put it on the table. Count me in for small ``h'' harmonization, not for capital ``H''. What do I mean by that?

I've enjoyed the relationship with my provincial colleagues and I look forward to probably meeting with all of them in May or June. Across the country they talk of overlap and duplication. It has been my view that Canadians do not support duplication and overlap in any sphere of government because of the scarce resources. I don't think there is as much overlap and duplication as the myth would suggest to us. In fact, I would encourage the ministers - and myself - to draw up lists of where there's duplication and overlap, because quite often we don't do the same thing to the same people. We don't trample over each other. On this issue I think there's a much better relationship between my officials and provincial officials at the working level.

.1650

Where there's a federal trigger, the federal response is there. Where there's a provincial trigger, it's over to the provinces. Where there may be a joint trigger, the provincial and federal officials work it out more times than not. When you bump it upstairs to the political level, duplication and overlap become a bit of a dance.

If we are sending two inspectors to the same river, one with a vial to test one product and another with a vial to test something else, it's not duplication. But we may say, ``Well, if we send one inspector with two vials, we'll do double the research in Canada''. We need to be specific when we talk about duplication and overlap.

When we say ``harmonization'', the EMFA... In his speech on Sunday the Prime Minister said that the federation works best when we try to solve one problem at a time.

We get our knickers in a knot when we try to do the waterfront all at once and we don't. There is great frustration and everybody points. There are a lot of agreements between federal and provincial governments, and I'm not sure the EMFA dealt with the answers because many of the angles didn't concur: the aboriginal groups weren't even part of it, Quebec wasn't included, and even some industries found it convoluted.

How is that supposed to ensure that the environmental waterfront will be looked after? I believe we need to cooperate and coordinate, but I'm not sure the EMFA is indeed the answer. I'm not sure that's how our country has been built and how it has operated. I think we've had a lot of success stories that have come, as the Prime Minister said, step by step. At the end of the day I think we have to speak to those national standards so that whatever arm of government is assigned the task in the end it is the standards that speak eloquently rather than the jurisdiction that speaks eloquently.

In terms of harmonization, I think we have to go at it not from an ideological perspective, but from a practical, pragmatic, best-interests-for-the-environment perspective.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Taylor.

To conclude the first round before we start a quick second one, we have Madam Kraft Sloan and the chair.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan (York - Simcoe): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Last year the environment committee had the opportunity to travel to the Arctic for part of its review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Along with other members, I was able to attend a conference for arctic parliamentarians in Yellowknife and you, along with Minister Irwin, attended the ministers' conference in Inuvik. I don't think that anyone who has travelled to the Canadian north can leave it without being greatly affected by the quality of the landscape, by the people, and by what you mentioned in your speech, some of the problems the people from the north face. A lot of those problems, especially with toxic contamination, are not due to their own making.

I have three questions for you. They're not true or false. First, what lessons can the Arctic teach us, particularly those of us in the south? Second, what hope do we have for the future health of the Arctic and the people who live there? Third, the proclamation of the establishment of an arctic council came out of the arctic ministers' conference. I believe that will be this summer. What has to happen to make the arctic council successful?

.1655

Mr. Marchi: I pass on at least two of the three. I think you're right in saying that one cannot visit the Arctic without being moved. That was my first visit north of 60 as a Canadian and as a member of Parliament. I very much enjoyed the visit. I want to visit that part of the world in the summer because it's a different world altogether.

I must tell you that I learned as much from the people in the Arctic as I did from the other representatives from the seven arctic nations. I learned from the individuals at our hotel and the children at the gymnasium where the conference was held. John Finlay was there representing the parliamentarian conference and gave a report of the findings. It was there that you really got a sense of the people and of the land.

Your first question was, what lessons do we learn? The biggest lesson we clearly must learn is how environmental hazards have no respect for boundaries. When you look at that pristine Arctic and consider the contaminants... Those contaminants are from the developed south's backyard. They're not from the Arctic's front yards. They're from our backyards and have been transported into their front yards. That's the first lesson.

The challenge is to go beyond the arctic nations who are convinced of that problem and of that lesson and to preach that lesson to the world, to say, ``Hey, wake up for a second!'' There is a need for an alarm clock wake-up call because what you're doing here lands over in the Arctic. We have to find the means. There was a discussion around the table as to how we do that and how we convince.

We made a commitment that at the United Nations sustainable development committee meetings part of our storyline that we will bring to the United Nations is the story and the lesson of the Arctic. If we can be passionate in a gymnasium in Inuvik, we can clearly be equally as enthusiastic in the gymnasium called the UN chamber.

Second, is there hope? I think there is hope. First, we've recognized the problem. Second, science is on our side in terms of the research and the efforts. I think we have the first two ingredients and now we have to determine the will. I believe the will can be found based on the science and based on the lessons we've learned. The other hope comes from the people on the land. That's the other message. The aboriginal peoples are our best guarantors of good environmental practices.

As Rosemarie Kuptana said to all of us, ``The environment isn't an issue for me; the environment is my life''. That's hopeful.

They live off the land. They trade because of what is on the land. They want the land taken care of. The lesson, with the combination of our best guarantors, the aboriginal people, gives me a lot of hope, not pessimism.

Third, part of that hope is the bringing together of the eight arctic countries into a permanent, comprehensive arctic council. I'm very proud of that. And Canadians should be proud. It was spearheaded by Canada. Ron Irwin, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, who was the lead, our department, and the parliamentarians who met before us really made it happen. There were a number of countries who didn't want to put a date and a time on when an arctic council would be formulated.

We need the arctic council because we can't look at this in a short-term, part-time way. We have to be serious. It has to be comprehensive. The arctic council gives us the framework with which to teach the lessons and hopefully reap the hope and the benefits.

There are meetings this month with representatives from all of the eight arctic countries to put flesh to bone, to prepare, and to hopefully make forming the arctic council a reality this summer. Then I think it will fly. I think the Arctic certainly will be better off for it.

.1700

It's not an easy challenge. It's an incredible clean-up in many respects, but I think the march has started, and I don't think it's going to be reversed.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Madam Kraft Sloan. To conclude this round, if you will permit it, Mr. Minister, I would like to say that I certainly welcome your reference to environmental security, as emphasized also in the Speech from the Throne. It seems to me that in order to move in that direction we will need the cooperation of five ministers, namely, Mr. Axworthy, Mr. Dingwall, Madam McLellan, you, and particularly the Minister of Finance.

The Minister of Finance is crucial in moving toward environmental security because there are so many subsidies that are dangerous to environmental security in global terms, particularly in terms of climate change, that need to be examined and modified.

I'm referring in particular to subsidies to the oil industry whereby a masterpiece in Orwellian language has been achieved by now calling them ``uplifts''. This is the latest term. They are no longer called subsidies.

The same needs to be done in reviewing subsidies to the mining industry and in other key sectors.

If that is done and if a shift is made from unsustainable subsidies to sustainable subsidies, then we might be on the road to environmental security.

I also welcome what you said about water. I think you struck a very important chord there with Canadians.

There is an excellent report by Peter Pearse dating back to 1986. His recommendations are languishing. They are desperately waiting to be implemented.

Your department is ideally suited to implement those recommendations. If you were to do that, I'm sure you will leave a profound mark on the collective Canadian psyche.

You made a reference to controlling car emissions as only part of the solution. That is so. I would to like to ask you whether you would favourably consider a recommendation in the CEPA report that does recommend to the government to move from the Department of Transport to your department the controls on automotive emissions, performance of fleets and the like. This is to keep this very important environmental sector of regulation under Environment rather under Transport, whose agenda is not always the most sustainable in the world.

Next, I'll hopefully get to a conclusion with two more questions.

These days, we hear, particularly from Ontario, about a reduction of expenditures. That also affects considerably their environmental capacity to perform. At the same time, we hear about the desire of the provinces to receive greater powers over the environment. It's a devolution of power, if you like.

If the provinces are withdrawing from the environment and yet want more powers, who will fill the vacuum created by these withdrawals? This is not only typical to Ontario. Obviously, if a devolution of power is to take place, it ought to be accompanied by an increase in environmental budgets on the part of the provinces, rather than a decrease. This really is a political question of some dimension.

Finally, in exchanges with Madame Guay and with Mr. Finlay, you made a reference to covenants in a context that ought to be favourable to Canada. I am told that Holland is often mentioned as an example of a country in which covenants have been very successful.

However, I must add to that. I wonder whether you are fully aware that Holland has a very stringent set of regulations on which the covenants are developed. Therefore, a precondition for a successful covenant policy is a very stringent set of regulations. Do you see it that way as well?

.1705

Mr. Marchi: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On your first question, which referred to the whole question of subsidies, I understand that the Minister of Finance must report to your committee, I think, in early May.

Obviously, it is my hope that he responds in a forceful way. After all, he was certainly the environment critic for a time while we were in opposition. It was a position that was hotly coveted and contested. It is one that he performed extremely well, I thought.

He was also the architect of the red book. There was a whole chapter on sustainable development. As the author, he placed this one commitment in a very prominent place in the list of commitments in that chapter.

So I have every expectation, with that kind of background, and now that he is Minister of Finance, that Mr. Martin is serious about the job at hand.

I know that when I assumed my current task as Minister of the Environment, I certainly reminded him of this and stressed the importance of getting on with the baseline study.

I was happy to note that in the last budget there were a number of things said and done, especially modestly, on the renewable energy front. I think it's a step in the right direction, and I'm hopeful that the Minister of Finance, in cooperation with government ministers and caucus members, will live up to the commitments he specifically made.

Second, you talked about the relationship of a number of key departments: Natural Resources, Health and Foreign Affairs. I think it's important for us to not be parochial about the environment. I think it's important for the environment not to seem to be simply the domain of a clash between industry, natural resources and agriculture, for instance. If that's the case, then I'm not sure the environment will win in the long term, because I think it's narrow and short term. If my math is correct, out of the four I'm in the minority.

So it's important, as you mentioned, to expand the view of how governments approach the environment and say, okay, Mr. Dingwall, as Minister of Health, what is your comment? Okay,Mr. Axworthy, Minister of Foreign Affairs, what does it mean to have the environment as a cornerstone of foreign policy? What does it mean when the Secretary of State from the United States makes a major speech on the environment in California? Was it partly politically motivated? Probably, but for the very first time, a Secretary of State talked about a global environment. As the foreign affairs minister travels, he sees that world and sees the interest in the environment. Okay, Ethel Blondin, you come from the Arctic. Where is your voice? We need that voice.

So what I hope to try to fashion is a larger, more participatory audience in government and in caucus so that we come from a value judgment, not from the narrow ``here is just an issue that concerns three or four mainline departments''. No. The environment concerns all Canadians, and therefore it should concern the Government of Canada.

On water and Peter Pearse, I did take the opportunity to meet with Mr. Pearse while I was in Vancouver. I found that he lived up to every expectation that was created about him. I thought he played a pivotal role in the preceding government when he made his report. We certainly intend to make water an issue, because Canadians want it to be an issue in terms of fashioning a strategy on that front so that some of the ideas that he put forth some years ago are just as relevant today. Indeed, may I say they're probably more relevant because some things haven't been done.

On the whole question of CEPA and the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, this is currently under the Minister of Transport. There are discussions that have taken place as to where the home should be. Should the home be under a Transport roof or an Environment roof?

.1710

At the same time, I've been informed by my officials that this issue is of priority to the Minister of Transport and his department pursuant to the commitment that CCME made last year in terms of national emission standards and that we need to move from guidelines to regulations so we can have those standards apply equally across the board.

Your fifth point or question was about who will fill the void if there is devolution and then, because of provincial cutbacks, a void appears. That is a concern that I tried to certainly put on the table this afternoon to which I'm sensitive. That's because if we don't watch it, the environment can fall between the cracks.

More than just the issue of the environment, if that is an approach of governments, then I'm not sure it's an approach that's going to have long-term viability. We need to speak to standards and cooperation and have that be eloquent rather than just be a jurisdiction. As you said or inferred, budgets come and go, but the environment, hopefully, will stay.

On covenants, it's true that Holland certainly has put this in motion. I hope to have a Canadianized version of covenants. I'd like to see the best and the worst of how covenants have worked in Europe. It's not the same simply trying to have that model apply to Canada or vice versa, but I would see that there may be areas in which regulations will be an underpinning.

There may be areas in which regulations may not exist. I think we can meet the same standards. I think we can even push some industry to go beyond what regulations would urge as a minimum. I think the smart corporations in the next little while will be the ones that don't have an office called ``environmental affairs''. I think the smart, successful ones are going to ask themselves how they can profit from the environment. That has everything to do with technologies and products on the shelf, because consumers will ultimately call the day.

So I think we should be liberals with covenants. My major preoccupation is that covenants bring the right to know into communities. That is the foundation upon which I have issued the covenant idea, and I don't think we should be ideological about it. I think it's still evolving. I certainly would invite any ideas or views on that issue that this committee may have as we formulate that idea a little further.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Minister. On the second round, Mr. Asselin or Madame Guay.

[Translation]

Mr. Asselin (Charlevoix): Mr. Minister, do you intend to extend the interim order prohibiting the export of PCBs issued by your predecessor as Minister of the Environment? Should Canadian PCBs be dealt with here? Should we develop our own processing capability with regard to PCBs or should we settle the issue quickly and authorize the export of PCBs to the United States?

Are you going to consult with the provinces in order to come up with short term, middle term and long term solutions for the disposition of PCBs?

[English]

Mr. Marchi: Thank you very much. It's a question that probably came very quickly once I was appointed. What we have done to date, pursuant to cabinet, is we have maintained the closed border. When my predecessor imposed that, one of the reasons was that we had not seen the plans of the United States EPA to offer to Canadian officials how the PCBs would be treated and dealt with. When I had to make a decision on whether to let the border be open or closed, I think the responsible decision, because I did not have those regulations, was to maintain the closed border until we did have them.

.1715

Those regulations have now come to us. They're currently being analysed by my departmental officials. I have not been informed as to the results of that analysis, but the commitment I gave to my cabinet colleagues was that once I had that analysis, I would go back on the basis of it. We have also had discussions with the provincial ministers and governments. We have had consultations, and there is a mixed review; some provinces come at it very differently, but we have consulted.

If we find that the regulations are compatible with our standards, then that is obviously one disposition. If the regulations are not up to our standards, then obviously there will be conditions placed on any possible option to open the border.

When we talk about PCB waste, I am aware that Canadian industry has certainly developed to address that problem, whether it's in the province of Quebec in terms of the portable or whether it's at Swan Hills in Alberta, which is a fixed establishment. I understand and appreciate their aspirations in terms of dealing with it at home. I also know and respect the concept that if we produce our waste we should also take care of our waste. Rio also told us that we can do that in regions as well.

So when we talk about exportation to the United States, there are many entities and interests in Canada that say, in terms of long distances, in terms of threat to the environment, in terms of spills, and in terms of the dollars required to transport and treat those PCB wastes, that sometimes those mitigate against proper disposition. What you have are companies simply storing and sitting on these PCBs. In the long-term interest, that isn't a healthy situation either.

So we need to iron that out. If in fact we have mutually compatible standards that we can use in treating that waste, then I think we should be able to consider that north-south idea. It may have to be in terms of regional or geographic areas in terms of disposal of PCB wastes, but I try to paint the picture as it sits now, and the next step is to see what the analysis is on those regulations.

The life of PCB waste for our Canadian industry has another six or eight years, and then they will have to move on to other wastes. So in the long-term scenery of waste, PCB occupies a short-term life. Obviously for those Canadian establishments, PCB is the main menu, if you will, but it won't be in six to eight years, which means that we will have to get those industries looking at other waste as well. That's another element of the equation that we need to be sensitive to as well.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Steckle.

[English]

Mr. Forseth, you can have one brief question.

Mr. Forseth: I wanted to talk about endangered species. We all know we have many wild species in Canada that are endangered. I just wanted to ask you about three aspects, because there is a promise that you're going to come forward with some legislation.

I wanted to know whether you can assure us that no species will ever become extinct in Canada due to human activity as a result of the legislation. Will the legislation encompass areas of habitat in terms of habitat protection? Then, in terms of the breadth of the legislation, will it be the federal House only, or will you cooperate with the provinces to bring forward an act that has agreement by all those who have an interest: the environmental community, landowners, and the provinces?

Mr. Marchi: I certainly tried to be very clear on how much it is a priority of our department, and the government has signalled that by specifically noting it in the throne speech.

Could I give a guarantee that under this legislation no species will ever become extinct? As interested and as passionate as I can get about the priority of this issue, I don't want to mislead you by giving you any kind of guarantees. I'm not sure whether the question of the guarantees will hold water in any area of federal, provincial, or municipal government or indeed in life.

.1720

Your first question is a simple question with a tough answer. Even with the best of your intentions, you couldn't give me any more guarantees about what's going to happen tomorrow in your party or mine either.

So I'll move to your second question. The question of habitat has to be part of the endangered species equation. We can't say we're going to protect endangered species and then say we're going to forget about habitat when we know one of the reasons they are endangered is their habitat is being destroyed. To that degree, some of the angles say if you're going to do that without habitat, it's better to do nothing, and perhaps they're right. Habitat has to be an answer.

Let me conclude on that endangered species question by saying it's a large community out there. There's a federal government, there's a provincial government, there's industry, there are farmers, there are angles, there are Canadians. I really hope all of us can come together and produce a consensus that we will definitely be moving the yardsticks forward.

Sometimes the problem in any business of government is where you have one side saying they will never accept the other side if they don't deliver exactly to the T. Government and politics is very much about the art of the possible. I would like to move towards that 100% solution. If the federal and provincial governments really put endangered species first, we'll get there. If we put the rock first, I'm not as hopeful. Certainly I won't be putting any rocks, and I hope my provincial colleagues won't either.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Finlay, one short question, please.

Mr. Finlay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This committee, in its review of CEPA and in its report, made the recommendation that all the products of biotechnology released into the environment, including those regulated under other acts, should come under CEPA. The government, in its response, did not accept this recommendation.

Mr. Minister, can you elaborate a little upon the reasons CEPA should not be the principal piece of federal legislation in the area of living products of biotechnology that are released into the Canadian environment?

Mr. Marchi: I certainly will have my deputy get into the specifics of that, because obviously I wasn't part of the long meetings that took place. He can provide you with the details much better than I can.

I am aware that in terms of the committee report and the government response, among the areas where there were frustrations and certainly gaps, probably biotechnology is at the top of the list. I am sensitive to that, and we need to work on that.

Similar to endangered species, the whole study and response has taken some two years. If we are serious about CEPA, which I believe we are, we also have to recognize that we can't re-fight old battles for another two years. Otherwise this mandate will come and go, and so will a modernization of CEPA.

When I say that, however, I don't mean to say there aren't areas where I think we can priorize and say we have to do a little better. We have to bring the different competing interests that perhaps provided the blockage to look at it and revisit it in the name of a stronger CEPA response by government, bringing it closer to the aspirations of the committee. It is my hope that we can work such an arrangement on biotechnology, and I certainly have signalled that.

As to the specifics, I'll ask my deputy to respond.

Mr. Finlay: With all respect, I appreciate your response, but my question goes back of course to the first question I asked about getting on with the matter and a lot of people having irons in the fire. Agriculture has apparently been given the responsibility to look after herbicides and so on, which are a biotechnological product, and there seems to be a conflict in there.

Mr. Marchi: I know Agriculture had something to say about biotechnology, to say the least. Hopefully we'll be able to revisit that, but I'll ask Mel to address it.

.1725

Mr. Cappe: In the government's response to the committee's report there's a quote on page 51. It says as a principle there will be no overlap or duplication in regulating products of biotechnology, and it's intended that CEPA would serve as the safety net for those areas that are not covered by other federal acts. In this case the Fertilizers Act covers biotechnology, the Seeds Act covers some elements of biotechnology, and the question was which was going to be pre-eminent.

What we've said is if there's a valid regulatory regime under another statute, CEPA would not apply, but if there was not a valid regulatory regime under another statute, CEPA provided the safety net. That was the model we were using.

As I think the minister has indicated, there's a general appreciation that this is an issue of some important concern to Canadians and that we may be able to do better. We're looking at ways of trying that.

The Chairman: Madam Kraft Sloan, please.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: With the chair's and the committee members' indulgence, I'm going to have a bit of a commercial break right now.

In your speech, Mr. Minister, you have indicated the importance of environmental technology to our economy. On May 13 and 14 there is a subcommittee I am chairing, and we will be reporting to the standing committee next week - it's with all due process in mind, Mr. Chair - about a forum we will be holding, loosely on jobs in the environment, where we will be taking a look at sustainable development. We will also be looking at three different thematic areas in a workshop covering topics such as energy conservation, pollution prevention, and waste management, and taking a look at how community groups, small business, and large industry are handling these issues. The idea here is to help parliamentarians better understand what sustainable development is all about, and secondly to see some of the opportunities in this particular area.

I hope we will have your participation and attendance. You have indicated in your speech how important this area is for us. It's a win-win situation for us. Not only do we create jobs but we work to make a better environment. I'm just wondering how you see your role in supporting these kinds of initiatives.

Mr. Marchi: Obviously as a minister you try to look at the priorities of government, and you also need to be realistic. While I'm ambitious about an environmental agenda, I'm also realistic that in the current mandate there's some 18 months. While the department will continue to do a lot of things, I'd certainly like to channel whatever energies I have into as focused an agenda as possible in order to impress on the public agenda a number of items.

The whole question of jobs and the economy vis-à-vis the environment is one of those priorities. While I was in Vancouver not only did I attend the global conference but I made an effort to meet the Canadian Environment Industry Association to listen to them about what their priorities are. In the Technology Partnership program I'm very anxious that those companies come forward with their ideas and their applications quickly, because that is a partnership program that will include also such players as the aerospace industry. I don't want our environmental companies to be the poor second cousins of that program. I want them in quickly. I'm certainly encouraging that as I move across the country.

Thirdly, I've asked the Canadian Environment Industry Association as well as individuals how governments can help when we speak of trade missions. It's not that you wish to duplicate Team Canada by the Prime Minister but that you want to see what the priorities of the marketplace in Canada are in terms of international.

They have identified for me two areas. One is the Asia-Pacific. The other is South America and Central America. It would be my intention within the mandate of this government to make at least two trips with companies from here in order to see if we can open those markets and, in doing so, not only create jobs but improve the environment there so that our front yards will be cleaner as a result of their backyards being a little cleaner.

.1730

It is a real concern for me. If I can attend on the 13th and 14th, I certainly will be there, given that it's in Ottawa. Normally our whip gives us a tough time about leaving Ottawa. There's a good chance that I will be able to participate and underscore that priority. I've also asked my departmental officials to lend their assistance as well as doing the display.

The important message then goes back to the message of the chair. I think the environment minister will be there; I hope the environment minister will be there. I'm even more hopeful that my colleagues in cabinet will also be there. I'm hoping that my colleague from Natural Resources will be there. Quite often she tells me that she's the minister of sustainable development. I'm very happy for her to be the minister of sustainable development. I hope the Minister of Industry is there, not only to play with environmental companies but vis-à-vis the whole relationship between industry, jobs, and the environment.

We have to broaden the participation. I think it's a wonderful initiative that parliamentarians are coming together, and I hope we have a good representation of cabinet colleagues beyond the Minister of Environment as well, because that goes back to the message that I think underlined the chairman's insightful question moments ago.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Thank you.

The Chairman: Actually, it might be worth while to add that sustainable development is in the legislating mandate of both the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Natural Resources. The question is how they interpret it.

Mr. Minister, you may be interested in knowing that the meeting announced by Madame Kraft Sloan is the result of very patient and steady work on her part over the last year or year and a half. It has been her persistent effort that will make it possible for us to have this event next week. We must also thank Mr. Forseth, as well as the Bloc Québécois, through the predecessor of Mr. Asselin, and Mr. Finlay.

Mr. Minister, I'd like to conclude briefly with one question as a follow-up to Mr. Finlay's question. We understand that the living products of biotechnology that are released in Canada will be new varieties of agricultural crops bioengineered to include resistance to insect attack, herbicides, drought, frost, and the like. These products will be regulated by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, which has a vested interest in their creation and commercial use.

The question is this, Mr. Minister. Don't you think it would be more appropriate for a federal department that has no vested interest in a product, such as Environment Canada, to define that product's regulatory status, keeping in mind that the regulation of pesticides was recently transferred to Health Canada from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada essentially for that very reason?

Mr. Marchi: Although I don't want to lessen the importance of what you said and asked, I have less of a concern interdepartmentally in terms of the lead, as long as the interest in either one of those departments is the public interest and as long as that interest gives us good standard and regulations. Then I can sleep a lot more easily at night. I wouldn't be insecure if it's over in Agriculture.

If we're serious about emissions coming from tailpipes of cars, would it be better dealt with in Transport or Environment? There are pros and cons. If we are seen to be doing the right thing for the public interest, which at the end of the day is what government is and should be all about, then I think government will have done its job. That's where the people are. I'm not sure the people really care about the jurisdictional position within a particular department as much as I think they value the government's programs or policies or standards that they will in fact enforce.

.1735

In terms of what my deputy said earlier about the regime between agriculture and the safety net of the environment, I'm somewhat comfortable with that concept. Obviously if the principles or standards between the two departments are different, then that's where government has a problem that needs to be resolved and hopefully they will resolve it to the higher standard, not to the lowest common denominator.

The Chairman: Thank you.

It is now time to conclude. This was a very productive, interesting, and substantial afternoon. Mr. Minister, you have certainly brought to us an important set of issues to keep in mind, and we will keep in mind your replies to the various questions. I want to thank you, the deputy minister, and the officials in the room for appearing, and I want to thank in particular the members of the committee for their participation and for their fine questions.

This meeting is adjourned.

Return to Committee Home Page

;